Allahabad High Court
Amarjeet Thru. His Mother Bindeshwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And ... on 21 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49240
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 814 of 2023
Revisionist :- Amarjeet Thru. His Mother Bindeshwari
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Asthana,Km. Gitanjali Shukla,Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Singh,Upendra Kumar Sagar,Vishnu Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1.Heard Shri Suraj Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Upendra Kumar Sagar, Advocate holding brief of Shri Vishnu Kumar Srivatava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the Juvenile Court, Bahraich in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2023 (X Minor JuvenileDelinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 10.04.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bahraich in Bail Application (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.02/2022, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Risia, District- Bahraich.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as, the revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged and the prosecution story is false, concocted and misconceived.
4. It is further submitted thatco-accused namely Vimla Devi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10268 of 2024. Copy of bail order of co-accused Vimla Devi placed before this Court is taken on record. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the revision is liable to be allowed.
5. Relevant portion of the order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10268 of 2024 reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 11.01.2022 in Case Crime No. 02 of 2022, under Sections 302, 120(B) IPC, Police Station- Risiya, District- Bahraich.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the impugned FIR wherein the allegation has been levelled against the applicant and co-accused Amarjeet. As per the prosecution story, the present applicant despite being a married lady was having illicit relationship with the co-accused Amarjeet and her husband was objecting on her such conduct, therefore, with the connivance of the applicant, the co-accused Amarjeet killed the husband of the applicant. It is also alleged that she was present at the place of incident. It has been submitted that the aforesaid allegation is absolutely false and she was not having any illicit relationship with the co-accused Amarjeet. Even if the statement of witnesses are taken on its face value, it the co-accused Amarjeet who has killed her husband. Charge sheet has been filed. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history. She undertakes that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. Besides, being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 480 BNSS.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the present applicant has herself recorded her statement confessing her guilt, upon which the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the said confession is an extra judicial confession which has no evidentiary value.
6. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the contents and allegations of the F.I.R. and other material available on record, the fact that applicant being a lady may be given the benefit of Section 480 BNSS; she has been implicated in the present case on the basis of extra judicial confession; charge sheet has been filed; the present applicant is having no previous criminal history and the undertaking of the present applicant that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and the fact that , I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed."
6. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 04.01.2022, i.e. about three years and seven months and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 (subject to Section 21 of the Act 2015), the maximum punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile is three years and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to be enlarged on bail and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may come with the contact of the known and unknown bet criminals or may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.
7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that no illegality has been committed by both the courts below as there was ample evidence against the revisionist, but he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.
8. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that co-accused Vimla Devi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10268 of 2024 as alsothe period of incarceration, i.e. about three years and seven months, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.
9. The impugned judgment and orderdated 30.05.2023, passed by the Juvenile Court, Bahraich in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2023 (X Minor JuvenileDelinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 10.04.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bahraich in Bail Application (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.02/2022, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Risia, District- Bahraichare set aside.
10. LetJuvenile 'X', of aforesaid Case Crime Numberbe enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his mother/natural guardian with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Board concerned and on submission of undertaking on affidavit by his mother that she will take due care of the juvenile, will not allow him to indulge in any unlawful or criminal activity or join the company of unlawful elements, will keep him under strict control, shall not attempt or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses, shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence, shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed either personally or through her counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.
11. For a period of one year from today, the Juvenile shall appear before the District Probation Officer concerned along with his natural guardian on 10th of every month.
Order Date :- 21.8.2025
Anand/-
